MigL

40 deg heat since Christmas ? Poor you. Try living in the Northern Hemisphere. We're glad they invented thermal underwear and parkas.

I'm in the habit of doing a thorough cleaning of cookies ( and other assorted crap ) everytime I shut down. And I use about four different computers depending on where I am in the house. That means everytime I come back to SFn ( or Modern Military Aviation at Key Publishing Forums, for the last year ), I get the annoying message about cookies. Its a pain in the a*s, but you learn to live with it.

I can agree on this part Ten oz "To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be?" But then your claim to be offended should not immediately mean that the offender is sexist ( as Phi is implying ) A sexist, racist or any other discriminatory offence should be evident to all. Otherwise only complainers are discriminated against. J Corbyn may have claimed he said 'people' for this specific reason. An accidental mis-speak makes him sexist. when clearly, people who know him much better than us North Americans, claim he certainly isn't. ( incidentally I've been calling Theresa May, 'E May'. Elizabeth May is a Canadian politician. I know even less about British politics than I thought. )

What if everyone else had started chiming in with their own explanations of the reason Ten oz had offended you ? ( he's never liked you/you are too thin skinned/you immediately jump to profanities/you hate measures of weight... ) Instead a simple explanation, and its over. For what its worth you two are better than politicians, or newsmen ( wait, is that sexist ? ).

But if E May had said, after the news broke, that she was offended by the implication that it was a gender disparaging comment, J Corbyn might have offered up an explanation ( "No, it was an identifier" ) or an apology ( if it was ). He may have still needed to apologize for the 'stupid' part of the comment, unless that has an explanation also. ( they are politicians, are they not ?) @Strange No I have been saying all along that I don't know, and reserve judgement. Others have been saying that the only criterion for offensive behavior, is whether the 'audience' is offended or not.

No, it was a misreading of the post; there was none. But that is the point; there could be no offence, or none intended, or an accidental mistyping, or a cultural difference, or view from the FoR of a different gender/sexuality/color, or myriad other causes for misunderstanding. I would like to thank Ten oz and Dimreepr for illustrating my point a lot better than my own posts throughout the last several pages. ( don't you love it when a plan comes together ? ) And the ease of resolving such 'misunderstandings by asking for a simple explanation/apology, rather than pillorying someone in the News for days or weeks.

Funny how some people perceive offence where there may be none. Maybe you should have been more aware of your audience Ten oz .

What if your aunt employed a lip-reader to catch you saying "what the f*ck" instead of "what the h*ll', Zapatos ? Should she be offended ? And should it be in the news for days that you are a horrible ,sexist person ? Of course, everyone changes their behavior when they are aware of their audience. How about when your audience is 'new', anonymous or you're not aware you have an audience ?

So what exactly is this discussion accomplishing ? Ten oz says everyone is allowed an opinion, but so far, opinions differ widely on whether it was a sexist comment or not. I guess from now on, I can call DrP, Koti and String Junky a "stupid man" ( not that I would ), and they won't be offended, but if I do the same with INow, Zapatos and Phi, they'll be offended by my sexist comment. Should I change my behavior and use of language because of people's perceptions and sensibilities ? Some people are offended by the slightest thing ( the ones who go looking for sexism everywhere ). Some people are offended by nothing ( have their heads in the sand regarding the sexism issue ). Neither extreme is viable. And it makes meeting new people ( or anonymous forums ) a minefield. PS You guys are like the 'mob'. Everytime I try to get out ( of a discussion ), you keep pulling me back in.

At the right edge of the frame, I see another 'hot' spot; the other pole of the magnet, I presume. And what looks like 'field' lines between the two poles, just as if it was iron filings on a sheet of paper overlaying a bar magnet. Could these apparent lines be just reflections off magnetic particles in the air (or ionized particles from the laser ) ? Without looking at the experimental set-up and method, this picture could be anything, and proves nothing. I could post a picture of a white bedsheet and say it proves the existence of Casper the ghost. How about posting the relevant information for this experiment ? (haven't looked into your CERN/ATLAS claim, but as far as I know, bosonic interactions can only occur at the Schwinger limit )

Don't be sorry, Phi. All anyone has presented, is opinions ( me included ). My point being that none of us have the FACTS to be sure one way or another. And therefore, should not make accusations one way or the other.

Never hurts to discuss these things, Zap.

Well, I ( and quite a few others ) can't comment on whether it was a sexist comment or not, based on available information. Others, who are apparently mind readers, are convinced that it was. If you go back a few pages, you can re-read my opinion on that... "If you go looking for sexism you'll find it, even when it may not be there." And since we're now re-hashing old material, I'll bow out of this discussion.

Don't disagree with anything you've said, INow, Zapatos and Phi. And if this thread was about sexism in society, you would be spot on for your posts. But this thread is about whether a whispered comment was sexist or not. So far none of you have posted anything justifying the argument that J Corbyn's comment was sexist ; only that sexism exists ( and that belongs in another thread ). IOW you mistakenly call my arguments 'strawmen', and I call yours 'windmills', Don Quixote.

Maybe I should have been clearer, INow… By continuing to flog this dead horse we are not addressing the issue of inequality of the sexes. The OP is about whether J Corbyn's whispered comment was sexist or not. Let's not jump to the conclusion that, because sexism does exists, the comment must have been sexist.

Yet we still don't have an agreement that what was said ( or whispered ) was actually disparaging to women. That is what the OP is about, not whether there is inequality for women. So we are not trying to fix anything. Just making sure that what is perceived by some, is acknowledged by all. There is a word for making everyone think as you do, but it's not 'equality'.

Wow. we're still tilting at this windmill ?

Strange wouldn't compare me to H Weinstein. He likes me. Besides, I have no power over women. ( other than my good looks, intelligence, great personality and modesty )

I would take Strange's comparison as a great compliment, Koti.

What power did R Feynman have over these women, Strange ? If you read Swansont's link, the soup incidents happened when he helped out one of his son's friends setting up and building a parallel processing computer ( the Connection Machine ), and where his job was analysis/troubleshooting and even included buying stationary supplies or painting walls. He may have had some 'celebrity' status as a Nobel laureate, but this was in 1984, four years before his death. Had you presented an account where he had power over one of his female students, I would totally agree with you. Is this another case of going looking for sexism because we expect it to be there ? ( compare me to R Feynman as much as you like. Please ! )

Just semantics, but... You can't win a 10km race after running 3km. Although you can be leading.

Interesting read Swansont. Thoroughly enjoyed it. You notice that he always asked; any of the women could have said no, and he would not have asked her again. I have read many accounts of his interactions with female scientists and students. None of them involve any condescension, or treatment as inferiors. So I would hesitate to jump from his proclivity to have his soup served by a pretty lady, to being a 'dick', as Prometheus posted. ( most people called him Dick, so don't feel bad Prometheus )

I couldn't let this go unchallenged... Romeo22 said "Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong." I'm sure Romeo22 is familiar with wave/particle duality in our models of light. Both work well in their INTENDED applications, but Romeo says we must discard one of the models as only one can be right. So what is light, a particle or a wave ? ( or is it both, or maybe, it is actually neither )

In direct reply to the OP... If there is a discontinuity in time prior to t+10^-43 sec then, since the law of energy conservation is due to the Lagrangian being symmetric under continuous translation in time ( Noether ), our conservation laws fall apart at this point. So, yes, there is a good possibility that conservation laws ( as we know them ) do not apply to the BB event

Strange said he "treated women pretty badly". Swansont said he was a "chauvinist". I ( and Richard ) take no offense at womanizer; simply means to enjoy the company of many women.